is anybody interested in this paper? anyone following it? Old Rocks- it supports Mann, does that mean you are OK with it?

any warmers out there willing to discuss the methodologies used? hahahaha

Click to expand...

If it says Co2 is bad, then the paper is wrong.

If it says CO2 is alright, then the paper is correct.

No need to read it, FOX has made up my mind for me already.

Click to expand...

its says-

703 Our reconstruction suggests that peak pre-industrial warmth occurred in Australasia around A.D.
704 12401360, somewhat later than described from Northern Hemisphere regions. The maximum
temperature anomaly in the Australian region calculated over the A.D. 12381267 period is 0.09o705 C
706 (±0.19°C) below 19611990 levels. It is worth noting that this medieval warming occurred in the
707 absence of significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, thus is not analogous to post 1950
708 observed warming which is predominantly anthropogenically-forced (Karoly and Braganza, 2005;
709 Hegerl et al., 2007a). This implies that if the full range of natural climate variability has not yet
710 been observed in Australasia, anthropogenic forcing may led to future climate surprises that may
711 manifest, for example, as changes in the frequency and duration of regional temperature extremes
712 (Alexander and Arblaster, 2009).

Click to expand...

its hard to say whether that means good or bad, hahahaha. I suspect they want us to infer that it is bad.

first and foremost is cherrypicking. Gergis stated that they used 27 out of 62 available proxy series and then proceeded to give the criteria for choosing the 27.

when asked to see the data for the unused proxies they refused.

when the proxy series that were chosen were put through the selection process by outside investigators, many of them failed to meet the criteria.

same old climate science story. cherrypick the data which best supports your preconceived conclusion, invent an ad hoc selection protocol that helps to cover your cherrypicking, then hide and obscure the data and methodologies so that your paper gets a good first impression that people remember before the whole thing get exposed as yet another fraud based on faulty science. these people have no shame.

Steve, Roman, or somebody , what am I doing wrong here? I tried to check the screening correlations of Gergis et al, and I&#8217;m getting such low values for a few proxies that there is no way that those can pass any test. I understood from the text that they used correlation on period 1921-1990 after detrending (both the instrumental and proxies), and that the instrumental was the actual target series (and not the against individual grid series). Simple R-code and data here.

The following graphic shows t-values for a regression of each detrended &#8220;passing&#8221; proxy against the target instrumental series, all downloaded from original data. ( I got exactly the same correlations as Jean S.) These calculations calculate significance in the style of Santer et al 2008. (The AR1 coefficient of residuals of proxy~instrumental is calculated and the number of degrees of freedom adjusted. A two-sided 5% significance test (again in Santer style) has a t-value benchmark of about +-2 for series of the length of the calibration period. (It varies a little, but this is not material for the point here and t-values of +-2 are shown in the graphic.) Only six of the 27 proxies have t-values exceeding +-2.

First, a study by Gergis et al., in the Journal of Climate uses a proxy network from the Australasian region to reconstruct temperature over the last millennium, and finds what can only be described as an Australian hockey stick. They use an ensemble of 3000 different reconstructions, using different methods and different subsets of the proxy network. Worth noting is that while some tree rings are used (which can&#8217;t be avoided, as there simply aren&#8217;t any other data for some time periods), the reconstruction relies equally on coral records, which are not subject to the same potential (though often-overstated) issues at low frequencies. The conclusion reached is that summer temperatures in the post-1950 period were warmer than anything else in the last 1000 years at high confidence, and in the last ~400 years at very high confidence.

New paleo records from Australasia provide evidence of MCA warming around 1250&#8211;1330 CE, somewhat later than maximum medieval warmth described from many Northern Hemisphere regions (Gergis et al., submitted). Following peak medieval warmth in the early 1300s, a cooling trend reaching a temperature anomaly of approximately 0.5 ± 0.18°C below the 1961&#8211;1990 CE climatology during the peak of the LIA, 1830&#8211;1859 CE (Gergis et al., submitted).

In addition, the Gergis reconstruction was one of a number of regional reconstructions compared to model simulations.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!